Is there anything close to a consensus on which is the better way to go? I've read seemingly conflicting reports on the two, with some saying that the RX1R actually has *less* contrast and DR than the RX1. Logically, it would seem to me that removing the AA filter would increase contrast if it was going to have any effect in that area at all.

And why would DR be reduced by removing the AA filter?

MuizenRegistered: Mar 31, 2006Total Posts: 23Country: Belgium

fredmirandafan wrote:dovey wrote:
Friend of Fred,
Does the hood allow you to screw in filters? I got one of the cheap eBay ones that are great protection for the lens, but as it is a screw in filter, I cannot add a filter without taking the hood off.

Yes both JJC and Fotodiox hoods allow filters and caps to be screwed in or taken on and off, which is why I like them!

Fred,
You wrote, that one can screw in filters in the Fotodiox hood for the RX1. I have the square Fotodiox Pro hood, but it positively does not have a thread to screw a filter in. When I noticed this I accepted this believing that this is the way this hood comes. But it is very impractical!
Most likely in manufacturing they forgot to put the thread in?
I will return this hood.
Harry

philip_pjRegistered: Apr 03, 2009Total Posts: 3411Country: Australia

'RX1 or RX1R on the used market.'

RX1 is better value used, and suffers very little in comparison on any front, if any at all.

millsartRegistered: Apr 29, 2009Total Posts: 5263Country: N/A

Muizen wrote:

Fred,
You wrote, that one can screw in filters in the Fotodiox hood for the RX1. I have the square Fotodiox Pro hood, but it positively does not have a thread to screw a filter in. When I noticed this I accepted this believing that this is the way this hood comes. But it is very impractical!
Most likely in manufacturing they forgot to put the thread in?
I will return this hood.
Harry

They purposely designed it so that you can install it over filters just like the Sony OEM hood.

A hood with filter threads on the end would become rather worthless since your filter is sticking out there and not getting the benefit of the hood.

The Fotodiox hood works just as a proper lens hood is supposed to and will shade either the front element, and/or a front element when you have a filter on the lens.

If your just going to screw a filter onto the end of a hood, then why bother with a hood in the first place ?

I can't see how you think its impractical ?

MuizenRegistered: Mar 31, 2006Total Posts: 23Country: Belgium

millsart wrote:Muizen wrote:

Fred,
You wrote, that one can screw in filters in the Fotodiox hood for the RX1. I have the square Fotodiox Pro hood, but it positively does not have a thread to screw a filter in. When I noticed this I accepted this believing that this is the way this hood comes. But it is very impractical!
Most likely in manufacturing they forgot to put the thread in?
I will return this hood.
Harry

They purposely designed it so that you can install it over filters just like the Sony OEM hood.

A hood with filter threads on the end would become rather worthless since your filter is sticking out there and not getting the benefit of the hood.

The Fotodiox hood works just as a proper lens hood is supposed to and will shade either the front element, and/or a front element when you have a filter on the lens.

If your just going to screw a filter onto the end of a hood, then why bother with a hood in the first place ?

douglasf13 wrote:
I've been shooting a lot of 1:1 format these days, and, needless to say, it's frustrating that the RX1 only offers two viewing aspect ratios. I usually just use black electrical tape on top of my LCD protector, in order to mask off whichever aspect ratio I'm going for, but the OVF is a little more tricky.

Well, I realized recently that Voigtlander made a Kontur viewfinder in 6x6 for an 75-80mm'ish lens, and, as luck would have it, cropping the RX1 square gives me about that equivalent.

I just received the OVF, and it is awesome. Kontur OVFs are probably the best out there, because they have 1X magnification, and you use both eyes with it. Essentially, it's a black box with frame lines that projects the frame lines into your normal vision, so it is huge and bright. I'm talking nearly the same size as my Hasselblad's 45 degree finder, and brighter.

I had to cut a few millimeters off of the front of the hotshoe, since the Sony smart shoe doesn't let it seat all the way in, and the rear of the shoe still sticks out a bit, but I've locked it in there solid, so no worries. My Kontur was pretty scuffed up, so I added my Hasselblad camera leather to it, too. I can still get my neoprene case around it, and, although it looks a bit bulky, I really don't notice much difference in size. I think it's worth it, considering it is probably just about the best OVF possible.

I've been using the Kontur 1:1 OVF (mentioned above) off and on, but I realized something that should have been obvious to me. Since the Kontur is directly over the lens, but it requires two eyes to use it, there is some parallax that I have a hard time adjusting for. Even after removing the focusing screen and trying to move it over a bit, my framing is uneven horizontally, so I'm no longer of the opinion that this finder is great for shooting square on the RX1. It works ok, but isn't ideal.

I really prefer just about any more "squared" format than 3:2, so I started looking around for more OVF options. With all of the recent talk about the new CMOS MFDB sensor from Sony, I decided that even the 645 ratio (same as 4:3) might be a fun option, even though it is only a little more square than 3:2. That has led me to this silly little Olympus VF-1 OVF, which is designed for their 17mm m4/3 lens.

I made a couple of quick mods to the VF-1. Firstly, I sanded off a few millimeters off of the front of the VF-1's foot, so that it slides all the way into the RX1's hotshoe without hanging out the back. This was pretty easy, since everything is plastic, but it isn't really necessary. Then, as usual, I added a bit of Hasselblad leather on the top and sides to cover up most of the VF-1's silver paint.

First, the bad news. The VF-1, as the $90 price would suggest, isn't in the same universe as my Voigtlander 35mm brightline finder, in terms of build. It's basically all plastic vs. all metal. Secondly, the optics of the Voigtlander are noticeably better in terms of flare, distortion, and brightline visibility. The magnification on the Voigtlander is a little higher, too. That's not to say the VF-1 is terrible, but, rather, the Voigtlander 35 OVF is that good. Thirdly, unlike the Voigtlander finder, the RX1's lens does creep into the viewfinder. Essentially, the entire focus ring of the RX1's lens is noticeable in the finder.

That sounds like a lot of issues, but, the good news is, the VF-1 is a great match for the actual field of view of the RX1 (assuming you crop to 4:3 ratio in your raw converter, like I'm doing.) It looks to be calibrated to somewhere between 1.75m to 2m, similar to the Leica m240, so, while up close shots will crop a bit out of the picture, the frame lines are a little more accurate overall at "normal" shooting distances. Without the mod I made, I'm guessing that it would be calibrated to around 2m or so, so it might be even better.

That's a big hangup with the Voigtlander 35 OVF. Since the RX1's lens is a little wider than 35mm, the Voigtlander OVF is calibrated to around .5m on the RX1, so you get a ton of extra "air" around your photo. Not so with the Olympus VF-1. It happens to be just about right. Even if you want to keep shooting in 3:2 ratio, the VF-1 is more accurate vertically, and you can just imagine the frame being a little wider than the VF-1's brightlines. Good stuff, and, despite all of its shortcomings, it makes the VF-1 an option I'll be using a lot.

Cropping the output of the RX1 to 4:3 gives you almost exactly the same angle of view and DOF with the RX1's 35/2 lens as the Contax 645 with the 55/3.5 lens, so it's a pretty sweet little mini-medium format setup.

edit: I forgot to mention that the above is measured with distortion correction set to auto in the camera, and the VF-1 doesn't have parallax marks, either.

douglasf13 wrote:
That's a big hangup with the Voigtlander 35 OVF. Since the RX1's lens is a little wider than 35mm, the Voigtlander OVF is calibrated to around .5m on the RX1, so you get a ton of extra "air" around your photo. Not so with the Olympus VF-1. It happens to be just about right. Even if you want to keep shooting in 3:2 ratio, the VF-1 is more accurate vertically, and you can just imagine the frame being a little wider than the VF-1's brightlines. Good stuff, and, despite all of its shortcomings, it makes the VF-1 an option I'll be using a lot.

Cropping the output of the RX1 to 4:3 gives you almost exactly the same angle of view and DOF with the RX1's 35/2 lens as the Contax 645 with the 55/3.5 lens, so it's a pretty sweet little mini-medium format setup.

Ironically, I have also been through a lot of finders lately on the RX1. First I was using the plastic Leica 28 but found that finder has a slightly offset shoe and fits a little loose into the RX1. The result is that if it is not aimed just right, it would turn just enough to cause parallax issues. It's also just a little too wide.

I then splurged and bought the RX1 Zeiss 35 finder (but discounted to just under $400). I can't believe how inaccurate that finder is with the RX1 lens given it's the "official" finder for the camera. You capture a LOT more than the finder shows. The finder also did not play well with my eyesight and is not a high eye-point finder like the Voigtlanders (so using it with glasses does not work so hot).

Finally, I turned to the Voigtlander metal 28 finder. This finder's actual framed view is very close to the RX1's lens when uncorrected (it's not as wide a view as that seen through the Leica 28 above so It seems a little on the narrow side for a 28, which works to the advantage of using it with the RX1). It's also a high eye-point finder and can be used with glasses. Anyway, that seems to be my favorite optical finder thus far for the full 3:2 aspect ratio of the RX1.

Thanks, Tariq. I've been considering swapping out my Voigtlander 35 for the 28, but I've been more interesting in different ratios, lately. If you have a spare second sometime, would you mind doing a quick test to see which single distance the Voigtlander 28 nails the framing? I'm curious if it is longer than 2m.

douglasf13 wrote:
Thanks, Tariq. I've been considering swapping out my Voigtlander 35 for the 28, but I've been more interesting in different ratios, lately. If you have a spare second sometime, would you mind doing a quick test to see which single distance the Voigtlander 28 nails the framing? I'm curious if it is longer than 2m.

I will do a more accurate check tomorrow but just eyeballing it, it looks pretty accurate at around say 6-9ft. I'm guessing it's going to be on the wide side at longer distances (I will check tomorrow with tripod at infinity).

Tariq Gibran wrote:douglasf13 wrote:
Thanks, Tariq. I've been considering swapping out my Voigtlander 35 for the 28, but I've been more interesting in different ratios, lately. If you have a spare second sometime, would you mind doing a quick test to see which single distance the Voigtlander 28 nails the framing? I'm curious if it is longer than 2m.

I will do a more accurate check tomorrow but just eyeballing it, it looks pretty accurate at around say 6-9ft. I'm guessing it's going to be on the wide side at longer distances (I will check tomorrow with tripod at infinity).

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if it were accurate at around 3m. That's the interesting trade off, in that the Voigtlander 35 is accurate around .5m, so there is "air" around everything you shoot, or, if you go with the Voigtlander 28, it probably has much less air after 3m, but it would then cutoff part of the frame as you get closer.

Do you still have the Zeiss RX1 OVF? I'd be curious what distance it is optimized for.

douglasf13 wrote:Tariq Gibran wrote:douglasf13 wrote:
Thanks, Tariq. I've been considering swapping out my Voigtlander 35 for the 28, but I've been more interesting in different ratios, lately. If you have a spare second sometime, would you mind doing a quick test to see which single distance the Voigtlander 28 nails the framing? I'm curious if it is longer than 2m.

I will do a more accurate check tomorrow but just eyeballing it, it looks pretty accurate at around say 6-9ft. I'm guessing it's going to be on the wide side at longer distances (I will check tomorrow with tripod at infinity).

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if it were accurate at around 3m. That's the interesting trade off, in that the Voigtlander 35 is accurate around .5m, so there is "air" around everything you shoot, or, if you go with the Voigtlander 28, it probably has much less air after 3m, but it would then cutoff part of the frame as you get closer.

Do you still have the Zeiss RX1 OVF? I'd be curious what distance it is optimized for.

I don't but the framing was noticeably off at the 2-3m I checked inside and everything at longer distances outside. Perhaps it was also accurate at your .5m's- I didn't check that distance- but the inaccuracy seemed rather dramatic to me.

Just setting up the Voigt 28 on the RX1 with tripod around the house, I do think the optimal accurate distance could be 3m's. Anything around that looks close enough not to really worry about.

joe88Registered: Oct 23, 2009Total Posts: 2274Country: United States

I have very different experience with the Sony viewfinder. I enjoyed it the most compared to the CV 28 or CV 35 metal finders on the RX1. I wear glasses and had no issues. View was large and clear with the Zeiss viewfinder, even better than the Leica finders. Also has least distortion compared to the CV finders. The CV28 finder didn't work for me at all on my RX1, I could not use it accurately. Anyone tried an X1/X2 36mm finder yet?

joe88 wrote:
I have very different experience with the Sony viewfinder. I enjoyed it the most compared to the CV 28 or CV 35 metal finders on the RX1. I wear glasses and had no issues. View was large and clear with the Zeiss viewfinder, even better than the Leica finders. Also has least distortion compared to the CV finders. The CV28 finder didn't work for me at all on my RX1, I could not use it accurately. Anyone tried an X1/X2 36mm finder yet?

That's interesting. My glasses are a +1.25 or so prescription and I was unable to see the entire frame through the Zeiss when wearing glasses (Perhaps due to my + prescription, I don't know). The other odd thing I noticed is that with most optical finders like this, I often don't even need to wear glasses but that was not the case with the Zeiss finder. The view was more blurry than I'm used to without glasses (my wife thought it was crystal clear so I know it was not an issue with the actual Zeiss finder).

joe88Registered: Oct 23, 2009Total Posts: 2274Country: United States

My eyesight is really poor, and without glasses, almost every object, even at MFD looks like a creamy bokeh to me I found the Zeiss finder not blurry at all. That said, the CV metal finders are still optically excellent and are a better value compared to the Zeiss. I finally returned the Zeiss finder and went back to the rear LCD and EVF. As much as I liked it, the framing was still not accurate enough for my liking.

Tariq Gibran wrote:douglasf13 wrote:Tariq Gibran wrote:douglasf13 wrote:
Thanks, Tariq. I've been considering swapping out my Voigtlander 35 for the 28, but I've been more interesting in different ratios, lately. If you have a spare second sometime, would you mind doing a quick test to see which single distance the Voigtlander 28 nails the framing? I'm curious if it is longer than 2m.

I will do a more accurate check tomorrow but just eyeballing it, it looks pretty accurate at around say 6-9ft. I'm guessing it's going to be on the wide side at longer distances (I will check tomorrow with tripod at infinity).

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if it were accurate at around 3m. That's the interesting trade off, in that the Voigtlander 35 is accurate around .5m, so there is "air" around everything you shoot, or, if you go with the Voigtlander 28, it probably has much less air after 3m, but it would then cutoff part of the frame as you get closer.

Do you still have the Zeiss RX1 OVF? I'd be curious what distance it is optimized for.

I don't but the framing was noticeably off at the 2-3m I checked inside and everything at longer distances outside. Perhaps it was also accurate at your .5m's- I didn't check that distance- but the inaccuracy seemed rather dramatic to me.

Just setting up the Voigt 28 on the RX1 with tripod around the house, I do think the optimal accurate distance could be 3m's. Anything around that looks close enough not to really worry about.

My guess is that the Zeiss OVF would be calibrated to 1m, like the M9. It's tough to figure out the proper trade off (Leica has switched it around a few times,) but I think around 2m seems to be the best compromise, and this VF-1 is about right for me.

douglasf13 wrote:Tariq Gibran wrote:douglasf13 wrote:Tariq Gibran wrote:douglasf13 wrote:
Thanks, Tariq. I've been considering swapping out my Voigtlander 35 for the 28, but I've been more interesting in different ratios, lately. If you have a spare second sometime, would you mind doing a quick test to see which single distance the Voigtlander 28 nails the framing? I'm curious if it is longer than 2m.

I will do a more accurate check tomorrow but just eyeballing it, it looks pretty accurate at around say 6-9ft. I'm guessing it's going to be on the wide side at longer distances (I will check tomorrow with tripod at infinity).

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if it were accurate at around 3m. That's the interesting trade off, in that the Voigtlander 35 is accurate around .5m, so there is "air" around everything you shoot, or, if you go with the Voigtlander 28, it probably has much less air after 3m, but it would then cutoff part of the frame as you get closer.

Do you still have the Zeiss RX1 OVF? I'd be curious what distance it is optimized for.

I don't but the framing was noticeably off at the 2-3m I checked inside and everything at longer distances outside. Perhaps it was also accurate at your .5m's- I didn't check that distance- but the inaccuracy seemed rather dramatic to me.

Just setting up the Voigt 28 on the RX1 with tripod around the house, I do think the optimal accurate distance could be 3m's. Anything around that looks close enough not to really worry about.

My guess is that the Zeiss OVF would be calibrated to 1m, like the M9. It's tough to figure out the proper trade off (Leica has switched it around a few times,) but I think around 2m seems to be the best compromise, and this VF-1 is about right for me.

Just a little update. At longer distances - lens set to infinity - the 28 voigt is more accurate than I expected for an OVF with the RX1 lens (without distortion correction). Rough approximation but this is generally what I'm seeing where the white line is what the Voigt 28 finder shows and the inside red line is what is captured. I doubt there is a more accurate optical finder for the RX1 when it comes to medium to long distances.http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5540407/V28.jpg

Thanks, Tariq. The problem for me is that I shoot a lot of stuff in the 2-3m range, so I'm not sure Id want to cut the frame off at closer distances. It's a classic external OVF/Leica rangefinder dilemma. Optimized for 2m is about right for me, which would still leave a fair amount of air around the frame at infinity, like the m240 does.

This 33.5mm (in the center according to DXO) lens makes ovfs a bit of a challenge.

douglasf13 wrote:
Thanks, Tariq. The problem for me is that I shoot a lot of stuff in the 2-3m range, so I'm not sure Id want to cut the frame off at closer distances. It's a classic external OVF/Leica rangefinder dilemma. Optimized for 2m is about right for me, which would still leave a fair amount of air around the frame at infinity, like the m240 does.

This 33.5mm (in the center according to DXO) lens makes ovfs a bit of a challenge.

Yeah, I don't know. I just re-tested again in the house to check accuracy at 2-3m's (against hard edges like door jams and picture frame edges, etc) and it seemed about as good as could be expected and more accurate than what I posted above at infinity outside (where the finder shows a little more than what is captured). So, for instance, at 2m's framed horizontally, the right and left sides are perfect, the bottom of the finder view is right at the edge (maybe a tiny bit obscured) by the lens front with the top dotted line in the finder accurately showing the top of the captured frame. Thus, I think the most accurate (except for the parrallax) is actually at 2-3m's. At all these distances, it feels much better matched to the uncorrected RX1 lens than that Zeiss 35 finder I had. If you do go back to using the full 3:2 aspect ratio, it's probably worth a try.